78 comments

“He added that the private sales of the missile launch tube and other weapons illustrate the need for comprehensive background checks as proposed by President Barack Obama”

Because the missile launcher was originally obtained legally right? and a background check would have prevented that…

Maybe the military should just keep tabs on its missile launchers better.

No assault weapons ban, no high capacity magazine ban, no universal background checks. They won’t happen and you know it.

Contact your reps! Protect your 2nd amendment rights!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

Rich

Feb. 6, 2013, 2:54 p.m.

How could I be frustrated anyway, this whole issue is going the direction i’ve been pushing for. Silly.

Contact your reps! Protect your 2nd amendment rights!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

Rich

Feb. 6, 2013, 2:36 p.m.

lets see…will you reply to this comment? I bet so…did you reply on this section before I did? Nope….so it must be you who is returning…will you argue with me about that? Most likely….HAHAH your both hilarious.

this website is inconsistent with its link screening lol.

Contact your reps! Protect your 2nd amendment rights!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

Michael Long

Feb. 6, 2013, 2:28 p.m.

Well when petitions are in favor of something you want, they work. When you are not in favor of something they call for, they don’t work at all and are a dime a dozen.

Michael Long

Feb. 6, 2013, 2:18 p.m.

“Instead you come back when I want you to in attempts to grand stand your position and logic against my endless comments transparently out of pure frustration.”

Project much?

And from my perspective, you’re the one who keeps returning… (grin)

carolyn

Feb. 6, 2013, 2:14 p.m.

Online petitions in a variety of forms can work. A woman in her 20′s started a petition to get Bank of America to stop its plan to charge a $5 fee for debt card users, More than 300,000 people signed it (I was one of them), and the fee plan was eliminated.

The petition process educates people, and more of us are more aware of more issues as a result of petitions that end up in our inboxes.

The “Move Your Money” campaign a few years ago actually got me off my duff, prompted me to do what I had long known I should. So I went through the process involved in switching from BOA to a non-profit credit union bank. I was only one in hundreds of thousands who joined in that same effort.

Public pressure via properly done online petitions work, especially when the signee provides his/her full name and address. EG: Common Cause petition to tell corporations to withdraw from ALEC. If you google “List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council” and look up “Former Corporate Members” you will find the huge list of companies which recently resigned membership - and a few of those are denying ever having been members. I doubt the NRA (long a member in good standing) will succumb to any pressure from Common Cause to disassociate itself.

Yes, effective petitions to government requires our disclosure of full name, address, and require us to follow up by making phone calls to the right reps. A lot of us do just that. They are a valid part of the entire process in educating ourselves on the issues and following through with action.

If either of you really wanted to make gains together, you would have emailed each other and continued this conversation there. Instead you come back when I want you to in attempts to grand stand your position and logic against my endless comments transparently out of pure frustration.

Hey you have someone who admires you for something your not really trying to….haha I love it.

Dime a dozen my bootay, I got a phone call FROM my rep to talk about the issue. Another separate reply asking to set up a meeting for lunch or coffee to discuss it.

Both of your frustrations are showing through hard now. Keep it coming.

Contact your reps! Protect your 2nd amendment rights!

ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html

Michael Long

Feb. 6, 2013, 1:05 p.m.

I’m not trying to “convert” Rich. I’m simply pointing out the inconsistency of his various positions to all of the others who might read them or follow the conversation.

And I agree about the legislation. If you care about the matter write (don’t email) your representative, Reid, and others. Or even better, call them.

Email petitions are a dime a dozen.

carolyn

Feb. 6, 2013, 12:59 p.m.

Michael, I admire you for continuing to try to work with Rich through the use of impeccable logic. It’s rather obvious by now Rich prefers conflict to resolution, does not read for content in his own posts (much less that of others) thus attempts at conversation to find common ground are circular and pointless.

My concern lies with how future legislation is debated. Legislation will have to go through the Senate - and as you know, Harry Reid, who has an “A” rating with the NRA, recently caved in on filibuster reform.

Today The Daily Kos sent out a petition to ask Reid to re-open filibuster reform in view of recent GOP threats to filibuster any nominee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless Democrats agree to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s power to actually protect consumers.

It’s been my opinion that Harry is fearful of the gun lobby, and that the upcoming Senate gun control debate had everything to do with his decision to do nothing about filibuster reform.

Rich

Feb. 6, 2013, 11:52 a.m.

Im slamming them for the original agenda, not whats happening now, re-read for comprehension.

And since you haven’t notice, I really don’t care what you perceive me as, it entertains me to get any response, thanks for strolling right in again.

They also aren’t doing what YOU think they should do, so stop acting like that’s all you wanted to see happen…I won’t quote your extensive list….Universal background checks may not even happen either.

Contact your reps! Protect your 2nd amendment rights!

ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html

Michael Long

Feb. 6, 2013, 10:24 a.m.

@Rich: You’re on the record as saying…

“There will be no Assault Weapons ban, probably won’t be a magazine ban either. It does not have the support need[ed]. Universal background checks, probably, and for good reason.”

So. You’ve said an AWB is stupid. I’ve said it was stupid. And it appears that they’re not doing it.

They are doing universal checks and several other things, which I’ve been promoting and to which you’re quoted as agreeing with both here and on another article.

In short. They’re doing what we think they should do.

So why slam “the lefties” for doing what we both agreed that we should do, and why the continued link to a site whose default letter says “do nothing at all”?

Or are you just a NRA shill?

Rich

Feb. 6, 2013, 9:53 a.m.

“Senate Democratic leaders expect a gun bill to move to the Senate floor that includes most of the proposals backed by President Barack Obama, with the notable exception of a ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons, a top aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.”

-Wall Street Journal

The lefties do something first look at effectiveness second plan is transparent and failing hard. I love it.

Contact your reps! Protect your 2nd amendment rights!

ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html

Rich

Feb. 6, 2013, 9:52 a.m.

“Senate Democratic leaders expect a gun bill to move to the Senate floor that includes most of the proposals backed by President Barack Obama, with the notable exception of a ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons, a top aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.”

-Wall Street Journal

The lefties do something first look at effectiveness second plan is transparent and failing hard. I love it.

Mr. Sapien: When are you going to admit that you misrepresented the law in Virginia? All I can say is for shame.

Joe Painter

Jan. 31, 2013, 7:15 p.m.

I have read the New York Times article you reference. There is nothing about people being able to get their gun rights restored by writing the statte. If you were in court and made such a statement under oath we would call it perjury.

It is people like you that are dangerous. You state falsehoods and cite in error sources to make your argument.

The Times article refers to a county next door to me. I know the judge and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys involved. It refers to a hearing before a General District Court judge; just like I mentioned above.

I cannot help but wonder how many people have fooled by your article.

Joe Painter

Jan. 31, 2013, 6:54 p.m.

As a Virginia lawyer and an acknowledged expert on firearms law, I can tell you that it is not true that someone can get their firearms rights back, after being ordered by involuntary commitment to in-patient treatment or being ordered to mandatory outpatient tratment, by writing to the state. It requires a petition to the General District Court where they reside and senting a copy to the Commonwealth’s Attorney. See Section 18.2-308.1:3, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The New York Times is quite simply in error. It is time to issue a retraction.
By the way, Virginia leads the nation in mental health reporting.

carolyn

Jan. 30, 2013, 11:26 a.m.

Kerri has come late into the conversation and has addressed me with some assumptions. I have had guns in the past (rifle and shotgun) and, having lived on a farm then, used them on large livestock, predators, and game. Since I now live in an urban area, I no longer own any guns. Perhaps reading through what has been already been said here might be useful, since nothing has been said by any of us which indicates we want to take away all your guns nor brought up the possibility that we’ll all end up dead or living in concentration camps.

John Wayne was a movie star. I have no idea why I would be compelled to either love or hate him. He played roles based on scripts written for him by hollywood screen writers. I wasn’t fond of his politics. If we’re into picking out Hollywood personalities who echo our politics, I would probably pick George Clooney. Definitely didn’t like Charleton Heston, or that “Make my Day” guy who yelled at an empty chair during the GOP convention.

” When they come to round you up, all gun owners that are left will know not to waste a bullet trying to save your treasonous hide.” Who are “they”, and what is “treasonous” about my point of view? Oh, I get it… YOU’RE the guys who’ve determined we’re treasonous.

Michael Long

Jan. 30, 2013, 10:46 a.m.

Funny Kerri mentioned John Wayne. Was just reading Gunfight on DC vs Heller. In it the author covers quite a bit of gun history, including the fact that nearly every western town in the late 1800’s had strict gun control bans, including “notorious” towns like Dodge and Tombstone.

You checked your guns at the town limits, or often left them with your horse at the stable.

As such, and in it’s worst year, Tombstone had exactly 8 deaths due to firearms, and that included the OK Corral. Not exactly the picture of an independent and wild but polite society based on a well-armed populace that we’ve been fed by Hollywood.

John Wayne strutting around with two-six-shooters in a double holster and carrying a rifle, Liberty Valance-style? Nope. John would have been thrown in jail.

In short, the “masses of a free land” have long had regulations controlling exactly when, where, and what you could carry.

Kerri Hudson

Jan. 30, 2013, 8:38 a.m.

@carolyn

Please read this article: “The calculus of genocide” Acceptance of gun control and registration have historically proven to be a stupid and suicidal move by the masses of a free land.

You fear the gun because you are not familiar with them, probably never even held one. You should come to terms with your fear and realize that they are a lot less scary when they are the last thing between you and a concentration camp.

Inline with previous requests to folks like you, I ask that, once you succeed in destroying my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, you permanently wear a shirt that states, ” I Hate John Wayne”. When they come to round you up, all gun owners that are left will know not to waste a bullet trying to save your treasonous hide.

Why are you even arguing with me about that? I’ll admit its entertaining, but you pick some odd battles….You even said they take the legwork out…making it easier, more efficient, and more personal than signing a petition. Ruger sends the letter with your personal email as the sender, I’ve gotten replies from every recipient with my name in their response. Now I send them all a more personal note.

Much more effective than a petition.

Good luck with those by the way!

Track Feinstiens bill with me and we can watch it fail together ;)

10% chance of getting past committee.
1% chance of being enacted.

(type www. then paste)
govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s150

Contact your reps! Protect your 2nd amendment rights!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

carolyn

Jan. 29, 2013, 12:24 p.m.

The purpose of your Rugers “Take Action Now petition” is to contact your congressional representatives - thus the automatic contact process is included. Once you provide your zip code, they know who your reps are and they do all the legwork. When you visited the websites I suggested, you didn’t find petitions - thus have no clue as to how they’re conducted - thus concluded, without any evidence, that they’re not as efficient and easy to use as your Ruger petition. The recipients of petitions aren’t always the same. Some are directed to senators only, some are directed to all reps, including state reps. Again, all of our representatives are identified through the use of our zip code. The PURPOSE of the petition determines WHO will be contacted. Once you’ve submitted your email address, the organizations behind the petitions come to your inbox. You no longer need to go find them.

Here are three of the many, many petitions out there which might help you educate yourself. The Brady petition directs concerns to senators. The other three are directed to the white house.

The Brady Campaign: “Contact Your U.S. Senators
Take Action, Support Efforts by Senator Feinstein and Congress to Reduce Gun Deaths” My name is on it.

The Daily Kos began the petition which asked Obama to start the conversation about gun control. It’s not closed even though the objective has been reached. “Daily Kos Now is the time to talk gun control” My name is on it.

The “We the People” White House Gun Control Petition Became the Site’s Most Popular Ever “Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress.” (The petition is closed since the objective was reached. My name is on it)

What you may find interesting is that the “We the People” petition process is the ability for any one of us to start a petition on the White House site. You might find the one created by an anti 1st amendment NRA Nut which got a lot of traction: “we petition the Obama administration to: Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment” (Anger at CNN reporter Piers Morgan because he’s a Brit and had the audacity to use his CNN perch to compare the high gun violence rates in this country to the low rates in England). (It’s was closed after Obama responded to it.) Obviously, I did not sign it. I suspect you may have or would have if you’d known about it.

There will be many more petitions coming up. It’s a hot topic. :)

Rich

Jan. 28, 2013, 7:56 p.m.

Old Joe? He showed his ignorance of facts….

“A shotgun would keep you a lot safer – a double barrel shotgun – than the assault weapon in somebody’s hand who doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it.

You know. *Points to the camera*

It’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. So, if you want to keep people away in an earthquake, buy some shotgun shells.”

HAHA! That keeps making me laugh. Thanks for bringing it up again.

You know what really separates those website from Rugers Take Action Now set up? Not a single one you listed has easy access to contact all my reps all the way up the entire line, if at all. I didn’t see any obvious links, let alone something so perfectly set up as what Ruger did.

You’re just upset and its getting funnier.

Track Feinstiens bill with me and we can watch it fail together ;)

10% chance of getting past committee.
1% chance of being enacted.

(type www. then paste)
govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s150

Contact your reps!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

carolyn

Jan. 28, 2013, 3:25 p.m.

“Some one seems a little upset that Ruger created an easy and ingenious way to contact all the representatives. No need to scour gov. website for email address.”

Not ingenious in the slightest. Ruger has taken their playbook from activist organizations which have all long employed “easy” access and prepared messages which directly and routinely target and bombard our reps:

What separates these organizations from Ruger is the fact that ALL organizations which support measures to increase legislation to promote gun safety are NON-PROFIT. They need supporter donations to survive.

Ruger is a corporation. They don’t ask for or need your money to promote their message. The costs of running their website campaign is chump change. They want your support to serve their own interests which is continuing business as usual.

carolyn

Jan. 28, 2013, 2:26 p.m.

Perhaps it might be helpful to go to the primary source of concerns regarding white house efforts to promote legislation geared towards improving gun safety. When we get our information second hand, we expect to get an interpreted (biased and shortened) version unless sources are cited and the recipient actually reads through it for content and validity.

It will take 33 minutes, 31 seconds to watch: “Fireside Hangout” with Vice President Biden on Reducing Gun Violence”

A question and answer format with the questioners focusing on different aspects of the debate, including assault weapons, mental health issues, law enforcement concerns, video games and lack of research to determine whether they’re causal in violence, lack of funding, hamstrung abilities to do the research needed, extended clips, the need for states to take initiative and not rely on national (central) government for all solutions, etc.

Rich

Jan. 28, 2013, 1:21 p.m.

More selectivity I see….

you:“but do think we should strengthen the background check system (as do about 92% of Americans), then tell him you don’t support one, but do support the other.”

Conflict of interests is unavoidable. Im completely fine with some if it will help support my beliefs. Ruger is an amazing company even if it didn’t make guns, its customer service is top notch.

Some one seems a little upset that Ruger created an easy and ingenious way to contact all the representatives. No need to scour gov. website for email address. Here an expert from one of the many responses:

“I do not doubt Senator Feinstein’s and Rep. DeGette’s sincerity, but I believe these standards are best left to state and local governments. However, I am in favor of improving the federal gun background check system through legislation that would strengthen the screening process for people who have a record of past criminal activities or mental illness. “

Contact your reps!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

Michael Long

Jan. 28, 2013, 12:55 p.m.

Yeah, I read it. “Do NOT pass more gun laws.”

Do nothing. Point fingers elsewhere. Misuse of facts. All straight from the NRA and gun lobby playbook.

One might even suspect you of astroturfing for Ruger, being that every other post is now a link to not to a policy or opinion or government contact web site, but to a specific gun manufacturer’s site.

Doesn’t Ruger make the SR-556? Their variant on the AR-15 platform? Yep. No conflict of interest here…

Rich

Jan. 28, 2013, 11:52 a.m.

Micheal Long go read what the Ruger Take Action now letter says, then realize you just wasted your time again.

Contact your reps!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

Michael Long

Jan. 28, 2013, 10:48 a.m.

“Great bulk…” with no citations. “Most factual studies…” with no citations and a “No True Scotsman” to boot. “One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited ” ...with no citations.

Many, most, the majority, etc., etc., all appeals based on the presumed majority. And “if” they save lives more lives than they take… yep. If. (Kleck was debunked, by the way.)

And I agree, contact your representative. But when you do so, tell him not just what you want to blindly oppose, but also tell him what you support.

Dear Congressmen,

I support the ability of criminals and the mentally disturbed to quickly and easily buy any weapon of their choice, at any time, from anyone, without any background check whatsoever.

A few gun owners that resell their weapons should face no minor inconveniences whatsoever.

I support shackling the ATF so that a few gun dealers can sell guns under the table to traffickers so they can bring them to our cities and resell them to criminals and drug dealers.

I support straw purchases, so a girlfriend or friend can buy me the guns I couldn’t get otherwise.

I don’t support CDC funding for studies regarding the causes and potential solutions to gun violence. We’re always better off making decisions without facts.

And I don’t believe in laws promoting safe storage. Anyone, including children, neighbors, contractors, thieves, and more, should quickly and easily be able to steal my pistol from my nightstand and my shotgun from my closet.

I believe that anyone, including the aforementioned convicted felons, drug dealers, the mentally disturbed, and the inept should have the free and unrestricted right to carry concealed weapons with no background checks, training, or certification whatsoever.

After all, we’re safer when *everyone* has guns.

Or…

If you don’t like the assault weapons ban, but do think we should strengthen the background check system (as do about 92% of Americans), then tell him you don’t support one, but do support the other.

One hears the phrase “responsible gun owner” tossed around quite a bit. And I full well know that there are many of them out there. I’m one of them, myself.

But if you’re a responsible gun owner, then act responsibly. Vote against measures that don’t make sense, and vote for measures that could, in fact, help keep criminals, kids, and the disturbed from obtaining weapons. And using them.

Don’t fall for the extremist rhetoric being served from BOTH sides of the debate.

Ben w.

Jan. 28, 2013, 9:59 a.m.

@Edward

Same here. I am a democrat too, but I am strongly against this attack on the second ammendment, and lessen my ability to protect my home and my family as a law abiding citizen, and safely using a range to shoot for sport and practice. Very upset that this man I voted for is a hippocrite and a liar, telling us that this is NOT part of his agenda, yet here we are. Thanks to everyone helping to spread the truth vs the propoganda being spread by the political machine.

Rich

Jan. 27, 2013, 11:32 a.m.

Thomas Sowell: Do gun control laws even control guns
Jan 26,2013

The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm’s clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state’s recent gun control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.

These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don’t know — and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don’t have the facts.

The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one — certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts.

Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.

How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.

But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither — especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.

When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.

Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to “make a statement” — but all at the cost of other people’s lives.

Contact your reps!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

Rich

Jan. 26, 2013, 6:29 p.m.

@3cjerseys

Haha good to know im not the only one entertained by this.

Contact your reps!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

carolyn

Jan. 26, 2013, 5:34 p.m.

Michael. Thanks for the great resource! I followed the link to the full and brilliantly written Jill Lepore New Yorker article, “Battle Ground America - One nation, under the gun” April 23, 2012. I noticed that using just those terms I would get a shortened version on the New Yorker site, so to get the full text, I added “black panthers” for the entire essay and it came up on the “Daily Steak” website. submitted 01/03/2013. Now I’m wondering why the New Yorker would post an abridged version, and why only that version comes up when the title is googled in.

“Battle Ground America - One nation, under the gun - black panthers”

It’s fact driven history, powerfully written. Anyone who reads it will more fully understand the original NRA purpose to their current position/drive to shift our previous interpretations/understanding of the 2nd amendment to the selectively literalist (revised) interpretations they’re currently trying to shove down our throats. Especially interesting is the information provided about the Reagan era hypocrisy in approving some expansion of gun regulations - driven by the fear of unregulated weapons falling into the “wrong” (people of color’s) hands… resulting in the Ku Klux Klan along with the NRA becoming short lived advocates for sensible solutions. The NRA had met the land of unintended consequences (equality under the law) and actually made some adjustments.

But again in our current increasingly polarized environment where everyone is increasingly free to dial up their preferred political agenda, free from the intrusion of accurate, balanced information, they’ve ramped up to “consequences be damned, full speed ahead!” Murdoch, safe in his NRA/corporate supported castle isn’t too worried about his negative press. He gets his audience to feed on it along with the rest of the hate, misinformation, and lies dispensed there.

It’ll be an interesting road ahead of us. As I suspected, you’re very active in joining with others who want to find solutions. I’ve also been an activist with a very long history of shared victories. At the top of the list was the achievement of civil rights, voting rights (still ongoing at the “enforcement” end). Since the last massive demonstration on gun regulations I attended was the “Million Mom March” in 2000, I’d like to see this one through: Achieving a safer, hence maybe a “nicer” country for all of us by reducing gun violence. The process is worth it since we then reflect on who we are and what drives us. Most of us already know it doesn’t have to be a fake testosterone boost through buying a Dodge Ram with a gun rack.

Rich

Jan. 26, 2013, 2:59 p.m.

Your welcome Edward! Spread it!

Well Mike you sure aren’t getting anyone else to.

I don’t even watch tv brother, I have no cable, I don’t listen mass media. I bought guns and ammo a long time ago and I’m not scared of loosing them because I know I’m on the winning side. You keep referring to blind followers. Every issue has some on each side.

Sure seems a lot of law enforcement are voicing their opinions agiasnt these proposed ideas, you don’t want to listen to them.

If I shoot at a bad guy, destroy property and or hit a bystander in the process. I’m going to get sued and all those issues will be covered if I have deep enough pockets, if I don’t , we’ll now I’ll have insurance to take care of that so that will be one less worry if when someone pulls the trigger.

...if im completely off the mark with that then think about this, how could it be enforced? Your basically asking people to register their guns with insurance, no one will volunteer to do that.

Contact your reps!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

Michael Long

Jan. 26, 2013, 2:39 p.m.

You keep making that assumption that I haven’t contacted or discussed the issue with my representatives. Or my senators. Or the governor. Or Biden.

As to funding, that’s true. Hard to compete with the firearm and ammunition manufacturers who make billions selling firearms and fear to all of those people who’re told by Fox and the NRA that they’re coming for your guns.

In fact, I was in a meeting just the other day where we were considering just who you could get to weigh in on the other side of the issue. Law enforcement? Health and safety officials?

One proposal of interest lay in increasing civil liabilities for weapons used or misused in criminal acts or accidents.

And then getting the insurance companies involved to offer coverage for said liabilities, with discounts, of course, for proven safe storage, registration, firearm safety training, and so on.

As they’d stand to make millions from selling policies, they’d also spend millions on advertising and promotion.

Edward Sampras

Jan. 26, 2013, 2:29 p.m.

“Contact your reps!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.”

Thanks for posting this Rich! As a Democrat, my gun rights are under attack like everyone else and I will do as much as possible to protect myself. I have posted this info on Facebook, Reddit and using word-of-mouth to my friends, family and co-workers.

Rich

Jan. 26, 2013, 1:19 p.m.

Lol what a surprise! A White supremacist group and a bunch of other white guys didn’t want black people to have guns, why on earth could that be?

“One might also mention that they more they stir things up, the more money that’s made by the gun industry backers who sit on the NRA’s board and on its nominating committee.”

This goes for both sides silly. But your side never benefits from the funding!

I admitted I’m a slave to mass media as much as you are, but I can recognize it better than some people and try to change myself. I also told you I’m not an NRA member, nor do I blindly follow them. Your comments make you sound just like what your labeling me as. Short of living off the grid, you are not escaping the control of money. Its funny how selective you are. How many people have you gotten to contact their reps?

When was the last gun ad you saw on tv? Or seen a gun add anywhere other than big box sporting good circulars ever before? their marketing is just so prevelant!! Every big industry has a massive lobbying arm. What a joke argument.

Contact your reps!

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps within 2 minutes or less.

Michael Long

Jan. 26, 2013, 12:35 p.m.

Carolyn,

Yep, comments from ‘round the web are interesting. But so is the history. Google: Atlantic Black Panther Gun Control.

“Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.””

“In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.””

Yep, Reagan, the NRA, and even the Ku Klux Klan were all on the side of gun control. Seems the white people didn’t feel safe when all of the black people were openly carrying.

Odd. I thought more guns were supposed to make people feel safer?

Then there’s Neal Knox, who back in 1977 staged a takeover of the NRA leadership.

Knox wanted to roll back gun laws, even the ones that restricted the sale of machine guns. He believed that gun-control laws threatened basic American freedoms, that there were malign forces that sought nothing less than total disarmament.

There would come a point in time when Knox would suggest that the assassinations of the 1960s and other horrors might have been part of a gun-control plot: “Is it possible that some of those incidents could have been created for the purpose of disarming the people of the free world?”

William J. Vizzard, a retired ATF official, once said, “The NRA is a populist lobby. They get support when people are mad and stirred up. They want the attention. They’re not interested in fixing things. They want to stir things up, and the more they stir things up, the more members they get and the more money they make. What do they gain by compromising? Nothing.”

One might also mention that they more they stir things up, the more money that’s made by the gun industry backers who sit on the NRA’s board and on its nominating committee.

That’s why I found Rich’s “sheeple” comment so funny. He styles himself as a non-conformist different from all of the other “sheeple” mislead by the liberal mass media.

While he and others eagerly drink the cold and calculated marketing being served by a $12 billion dollar a year industry and its lobbying arm.

3cjerseys

Jan. 26, 2013, 12:04 p.m.

Carolyn, are one of those that believe we are the cause of global warming?
Both you and Mike are goofballs. this is too funny.

Rich

Jan. 26, 2013, 9:50 a.m.

While the minority libs try to collect information on guncontrol opinions to write books, we the majority of pro gun advocates voice our opinions to those who represent us, no wonder we win.

Rich

Jan. 25, 2013, 11:56 p.m.

Just to make sure the assault weapon ban doesn’t go through, everyone who hasn’t yet, but still wants to voice their opinion to their reps, here is a quick way.

Google:

“Ruger Take Action Now!”

You can contact all your reps withing 2 minutes or less.

Rich

Jan. 25, 2013, 11:53 p.m.

Just to make sure this doesn’t go through, everyone who wants to quickly voice their opinion to their reps!

“The final nail in the coffin of gun control was yesterday when Harry Reid backed off his threat to do away with the filibuster. It was going to be long hard slog to get to 51 votes for the reasons mention in this story. 60 votes is flat out impossible, they would have to get EVERY democrat including the ones now opposed, plus five republicans and so far not one republican has shown any interest.”

I suspect you’ve already done this, but I just went to Fox Nation and found a recent article on 2nd amendment rights, “Indiana County Ordinance Declares All Laws Violating 2nd Amendment Null And Void” - just to read some of the reader comments (as you’re doing here for resource material). My hair is on fire.

If I were writing a book about the attempt to enact sensible gun regulations in this country, I’d never be able to confine myself to the topic at hand - instead stray too far into the interconnected topics which lead to the incredible polarization we have here, education level and quality of education heading the list. Our lack of upper level critical thinking skills, lack of self-knowledge which leads to the inability to sort fact from emotion based opinions, which lead to data mining for “facty” opinions which support emotional positions, inflexible minds which reject adaptation to new information, regional traditions, smaller inland communities which center around church and tradition to find commonality and consensus (community pressure) versus diverse urban communities whose citizens hear more than one voice and tend to solve their problems using the tools of government.

The most chilling example that pulls it all together for me is the experience of a childhood friend. He came from a very church-centered fundamentalist family and community. Early in life he became fascinated with science, eventually became a well-known paleontologist. As a result, his family and community dis-owned him. Since his choice was to either cave in to community or follow his passion for knowledge, this “sheeple” chose to leave the flock and paid a very heavy emotional price for it.

Rich

Jan. 25, 2013, 8:24 p.m.

So you haven’t contacted your reps?

traffickers crossing over to an adjoining state, you mean like the ones from mexico that bring all the banned drugs into USA?

Banning guns doesnt work.

More guns does not equal more death.
More gun restrictions do no equal less crime.

You forgot to quote the end of the Harvard article….personally I like the quote:

“Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University
of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated
study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to
determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better
contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was
with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did
not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns,
but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative
finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where not to aim public health resources.”

Michael Long

Jan. 25, 2013, 7:13 p.m.

As I believe I said once before, the ideas posted here and elsewhere have been done primarily to refine them, to see what others thought of them, and to polish the arguments supporting them, and see what counter-arguments might apply and what else might need to be considered.

Basically, I’m writing a book.

Oh, and Chicago? Doesn’t do a lot of good to ban guns when traffickers simply cross over to an adjoining state. Universal checks and unshackling the ATF to detect and prosecute traffickers would in my estimation (and that of those in the CPD) do a lot to dry up the supply of handguns there.

Rich

Jan. 25, 2013, 5:46 p.m.

Did banning handguns in Chicago work? Did prohibition of Alcohol work? Did prohibition of Marijuana work? Does it work at all or does it cost more money and time than its worth? More guns do not equal more deaths, but banning them does for sure.

Banning the ones that are used the least crimes is plain stupidity.

Yes you can use other things, not only wood produces the right smoke.

We humans are very small part of climate change…the earth is getting HOT!!! But the entire universe is changing and the effects are felt all the way through to the smallest planets.

I called you a goofball, or do you have reason to think you would fall under the sheeple category?

Im not an NRA member, nor do I fully support or believe in everything they do. Anyone blindly following them is indeed one of the many sheeple in the USA.

How much effort have you expelled arguing with me over trivial things that you could have spent promoting your ideas to your local government officials? If I can so easily derail you, no wonder the media has such an impact. You looked up woodgas engines, hahah!

Michael Long

Jan. 25, 2013, 4:31 p.m.

Your statement, “I choose to believe…” reminds me of climate change skeptics who relentlessly hunt down a single source that reinforces their preconceptions, then use it as the fundamental basis for all of their arguments henceforth.

Personally I liked this quote regarding the Harvard paper, “I would like to attempt to break down this essay for you, not because the authors are opponents to gun regulation, but because…”

What were you saying earlier about biased arguments? Or doesn’t it apply when said bias backs your own?

Regardless, the numbers I gave are not “my” analysis. But the “Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state” data is out there, as are ownership percentages by state. Plot them yourself.

The problem with comparing numbers across nations lie in cultural differences and other factors. What applies here may not apply there, and vice-versa. Then there are factors that don’t appear based on numbers alone.

Switzerland, as the Harvard paper indicates, has extremely high gun ownership… however, Switzerland also has mandatory conscription into the militia of all men between 20 and 30.

The requirements for ownership of militia weapons mandates annual training and practice; laws for transportation and storage of firearms are strict and permits to carry are difficult to obtain; citizens are limited to a maximum of three firearms apiece. Weapons must be secured.

Switzerland’s gun policy requires all purchases of ammunition to be registered and recorded, and every gun legally sold to bear a serial number. Permits and background checks are required for purchase. Records must be kept and maintained.

In short, regulations that if proposed and implemented here would send the NRA leadership into a frothing apoplexy.

BTW, other fuels? Try rereading for comprehension. “Just as with many other biofuels, the technology is not scalable.” Other biofuels being “other fuels”.

And since you descended into name-calling once more, “Sheeple,” Rich? Sheeple?

Ah. I see. Sheeple. Because it’s blindingly obvious that no one could possibly look at the “facts” and come up with any other opinion other than that formed by your own preconceptions.

Why, the only possible explanation is that they’ve been brainwashed by the elitist intellectual liberal mass-media. Poor, poor, poor sheeple.

If only there were some totally unbiased organization devoted to bringing the truth to light! An organization backed by the gun industry, with gun industry executes sitting on its board. A lobbying organization whose top executives make millions a year keeping the flame alive.